Author
Topic: Top 5 Blockbuster Trilogies (Read 318 times)

There is another Top 5 Trilogies thread but I wanted to compare trilogies without having the likes of Three Colours popping in and getting all the love. So looking only at action movies and the like, what are the best trilogies of movies ever?

(If you think this was inspired by the last Apes movie, you're right.)

I would not consider any three movies of the MCU to be a trilogy. They're part of a franchise and the Avengers movies are not a series of successive stories with narrative unity - they have episodes in between.

But you clearly do not abide by the same semantical thinking I do. Will you still consider the first 3 Toy Story movies a trilogy when the fourth one comes out? How do you rationalise separating those Alien movies from the rest of the franchise? Same question for MI and Rocky.

I would not consider any three movies of the MCU to be a trilogy. They're part of a franchise and the Avengers movies are not a series of successive stories with narrative unity - they have episodes in between.

But you clearly do not abide by the same semantical thinking I do. Will you still consider the first 3 Toy Story movies a trilogy when the fourth one comes out? How do you rationalise separating those Alien movies from the rest of the franchise? Same question for MI and Rocky.

Your logic for Mad Max is dubious.

Taking a three film chunk out of a series and calling that a trilogy makes sense, but I'd say you're right about non-consecutive films being a dubious entry.

I'd go Back to the Future & Cornetto Trilogies, with a mega-cheater entry of the Lord Of The Rings bonus materials.

I would not consider any three movies of the MCU to be a trilogy. They're part of a franchise and the Avengers movies are not a series of successive stories with narrative unity - they have episodes in between.

Iron Man stands apart. You can watch those three without needing any further knowledge of the outside MCU. His appearances in the other film are like guest star cameos and supporting roles.

Will you still consider the first 3 Toy Story movies a trilogy when the fourth one comes out?

Yes. The trilogy was made under John Lasseter's guidance before he left for Disney. Plus, like with Alien and Rocky, the first 3 films in any series form a trilogy.

Mission: Impossible is trickier, but III is where JJ Abrams and his company started producing the films. It's similar to making a James Bond trilogy by taking the first three films by Brosnan or Craig or saying that there is an Original Star Wars trilogy and now a new one. Or if James Cameron were to make a 3rd Terminator film we would finally have a Terminator trilogy.

The Craig movies are united by a continued plot/story. The only unity in the Brosnan movies is the actor, which is not the best grounds to separate any three of his movies from the rest and call that a trilogy.

IM3 is a direct reaction to the events of The Avengers, and Stark is the closest thing those movies have to a main character, probably on equal footing with one or two of the other Avengers, but still in the lead. Same for Civil War.

You could not watch a Cameron Terminator trilogy on its own because if the new movie happens it will have to take into account all the other sequels. How can you have a trilogy that has this massive gap of events and information in it?